Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday August 15, 2013 @09:11AM
from the may-I-have-another dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Washington Post reports that Pfc. Bradley Manning told a military judge during his sentencing hearing that he is sorry he hurt the United States by leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks and he asked for leniency as he spoke for less than five minutes, often in a quavering voice "I'm sorry I hurt people. I'm sorry that I hurt the United States," said Manning, who was convicted last month of multiple crimes, including violations of the Espionage Act, for turning over the classified material. "I'm apologizing for the unintended consequences of my actions. I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people." Speaking publicly for only the third time since he was arrested in Iraq in June 2010, Manning said he had been naive. "I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'""

You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right.... Do you remember, [O'Brien] went on, writing in your diary, 'Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four'?
Yes, said Winston.
O'Brien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
Four.
And if the Party says that it is not four but five--then how many?
Four.....
Five

That wasn't the last page. I know that wasn't the last page because the last pages of that book haunted me for weeks after I read them. Its probably one of the most emotionally disturbing bits of fiction that I have ever read. Just thinking of the last few words of that book sends shudders down my spine now.

This particular scene however, I have trouble not replacing Winston and O'Brien with the TNG version of this exact scene. "There are FOUR lights!"

What is really sickening about it, is US mass media and the US government seem to be taking pride in the apology, it's like they have completely and totally lost connection with real people and the real world and how they will view that forced apology. Should Bradley Manning have made that apology, of course, they are empty words to feed to the ugly beast that the US government has become, one that thrives on lies and false compliments, a Hollywood charade where bullshit trumps the truth. Lets see what pride Uncle Tom Obama the choom gang coward can suck out of that apology, let's see the US joint chiefs of staff puff out their chests at being able to force, let's see US corporate mass media trumpet it out to the whole planet.

Truly mind boggling, something the US would have mocked and derided just thirty odd years ago coming out of the Soviet Union is something these shit heads now take pride in, their lack of shame, hides from the the true public feelings about the sickness on display.

Truly mind boggling, something the US would have mocked and derided just thirty odd years ago coming out of the Soviet Union is something these shit heads now take pride in, their lack of shame, hides from the the true public feelings about the sickness on display.

It's only mind boggling if you belive such mockery and derision was ever genuine. Even when the US made noises about freedom, it's own cloak and dagger department toppled democratically elected governments left and right (mostly left) and installed its own puppet dictators in their place. It persecuted its own citizens for their political opinions, just like Soviet Union did. And since the latter no longer exists, there's no reason to pretend anymore.

Let this be a lesson to everyone: those who wave the flags rarely believe in or even look at what's in them. And that's what freedom ever was to United States: a meaningless sequence of letters to use as a tribal identifier, just like communism was for the Soviet Union. Talk is cheap, actions matter, and US had Joseph McCarthy at home and the CIA abroad.

Has anyone NOT read 1984 by now? I'm pretty sure it was required reading at high school in the UK for a while.

If anyone hasn't read it, they should do so. Right now. It is the book most relevant to the times in which we live. Spoilers follow. The parallels are just terrifying:

We have total surveillance of all people. Heck, think about laptops and smart TVs. Are you sure the NSA can't turn on their webcams and microphones remotely, a la telescreens?

We have a Winston equivalent breaking down and saying how much he loves the government and how amazed he is that he could have ever doubted their greatness.

We have the government torturing or executing anyone who disagrees with them.

We are in a state of perpetual war against regions of the world that somehow suddenly shift yet somehow stay the same (one day Afghanistan, the next day Iraq, then Iran, etc).

Until recently bin Laden was the target of the "5 minutes hate". Though I guess these days there's no equivalent. The analogy is a little rough because in the book Emmanuel Goldstein (?) was a terrorist figure entirely manufactured by Big Brother to attract and flush out rebels. In reality no such person existed. bin Laden surely existed, although he did once work for the CIA itself until the US no longer needed him. So in a rough sense he was "made" by US policies.

Of course, there are things that don't apply too. In 1984 the government exercised absolute control over information, as the Soviet Union did (which is what inspired the book). Goldstein could be manufactured out of nothing because Big Brother controlled all access to information and had perfect propaganda in place. I am very skeptical such a thing does or could exist today. Our Big Brother equivalents hide information obsessively but they know they can't actually control it once out, nor can they rewrite history. If the internet had not happened or had evolved in a different way (like in China) then this part might also have come true, but so far in the west I believe we have a pretty good idea of what's truth vs fiction - we might be missing information but we are not widely believing propaganda. Well, except for idiots who have an instinctive need to "belong to a team" in which case they choose to believe propaganda even though disproving it is trivial. But that's a different problem than the people in 1984 had.

No they don't. MSNBC has a horrific record of presenting its news in a biased and sometimes offensive manner.

I'm not saying FoxNews doesn't have its problems. I saw a graphic today that shows the problem very distinctly:
[image of Obama with a Pepsi]
1. CNN: President Obama appeals to Pepsi drinkers
2. FoxNews: President Obama declares war on Coca-Cola drinkers
3. MSNBC: In a few minutes, we'll cut to the President drinking the acceptable drink. Anyone who disagrees is racist!
4. BBC: The US has fired a drone missile on Pakistan.

"We might be worried about the wrong dystopia.... This is from the introduction of Neil Postman's excellent book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", on the dueling dystopian visions of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley:

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.

Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite capacity for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us." -Mike Lewinski

I agree, so long as we are VERY SPECIFICALLY talking about tactical information. If he had leaked where there would be surveillance in the next day or week, where troops were moving, where they were intending to attack, where they were right that moment....then yes...absolutely. Hang the fucker for treason. Fine.

However, he didn't release anything even remotely like that. He released political documents and evidence of war crimes, ones which had already happened and gave no current, actionable tactical information.

There is no way I would condone ANY prohibition on information disclosure which covers up crimes against humanity or other wrongdoing by the military, even in time of war. Quite simply, if they break the rules of war, and commit crimes against humanity, they are not fighting a legal war, and no protections at all should apply to them; especially not secrecy.

...5) My heart boils over when I think that you might believe that I am guilty of these crimes and that in your heart of hearts you think that I am really guilty of all of these horrors. My head is giddy with confusion, and I feel like yelling at the top of my voice. I feel like pounding my head against the wall. What am I to do? What am I to do?...

I hope Manning hasn't suffered so much abuse that he actually believes he was wrong and that the "proper authority" is unquestionably correct.

He said this during his sentencing hearing, where "shows remorse" is one of the tick boxes on the form. The statement was written by his attorney, and then memorized and recited by Manning. There is no reason to believe it reflects his true beliefs.

I hope Manning hasn't suffered so much abuse that he actually believes he was wrong and that the "proper authority" is unquestionably correct.

He said this during his sentencing hearing, where "shows remorse" is one of the tick boxes on the form. The statement was written by his attorney, and then memorized and recited by Manning. There is no reason to believe it reflects his true beliefs.

Actually, it probably does reflect his true beliefs -- the wording is very lawyer-massaged.

"I'm apologizing for the unintended consequences of my actions. I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people."-- He's sorry for any consequences he didn't intend, especially where it hurt US citizens. I can believe that.

"I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"-- Translation: "How on earth did I believe that just by releasing that info, I could overturn the decisions of those with the proper authority?" What he's saying here is not that proper authority was better suited to handling the information, but that he has been disillusioned that his course of action would cause them to change their ways. I can believe that too.

This can be done for every bit of his statement. Sure, it can be interpreted as "he has remorse for what he did and is a better, more educated and mature person now who sees the error of his ways" and the checkbox on his sentencing can be ticked. However, the wording is very precise in what it doesn't say. As such, his statement can also be summed up as "I did what I did, thought I could fix the system, and discovered that my chosen method wasn't successful. If I had the opportunity to do it again, I'd do it differently."

The "proper authority" wording really catches at me. Authority doesn't mean that you know everything; it just means that you were in the right place at the right time with sufficient credentials to have power.

What he could have said there is, "In my low-level position I didn't have the perspective to see what damage this might cause, and should not have overriden the authority of those in a position to take a broader perspective." It's written so that people could come away thinking that's what he did say,

The "proper authority" wording really catches at me. Authority doesn't mean that you know everything; it just means that you were in the right place at the right time with sufficient credentials to have power.

What he could have said there is, "In my low-level position I didn't have the perspective to see what damage this might cause, and should not have overriden the authority of those in a position to take a broader perspective." It's written so that people could come away thinking that's what he did say, but it clearly doesn't. Instead, he's saying exactly what you said: "I had no power to change things. I'd hoped the leaks would give me some, but they didn't. The power structure remains in place."

What I don't understand is, just who is this addressed to? Surely he doesn't expect the sentencing judge to be fooled by this non-apology into granting leniency. Could it just be a thinly coded message, telling the people who support him that there's still a lot of work to do, dressed up as an "apology" so that it would get press coverage?

Actually, if the quotes are exact, what really bothers me is the way they read.

My dad was obsessed with brainwashing. 1984, Communism, the whole Cold War terror. Which, ironically, even though the Satan-led Godless Commies were going to come in and force us to all Love Big Brother managed to get by just fine without "enemy combatants" or citizens who effectively became non-citizens the minute they left US soil.

So he collected books on brainwashing. And the stilted wording of the "confessions" of the brainwashed in those books were rife with phrasings like those attributed to Manning.

In fact, that is probably why you don't hear too much about brainwashing any more. Essentially brainwashing was the process of brutalizing someone into a psychotic state where they'd parrot out "the truth". But only the most credulous would believe the wooden delivery or unnatural tone of these confessions. As propaganda, brainwashing sucked. And that's all most brainwashing was ever used for, since it didn't actually cause anyone to truly "love Big Brother". It didn't re-shape them to be happy supporters of Communism and its ideals. It just produced automatons whose sole utility was to act as automatons speaking the words that were forced into their heads.

After seeing the authorized "tactics" in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, one can only arrive at the conclusion that Manning has no idea what he believes anymore. His statement sounds like that of a man subjected to the same secret laws of justice that FISA stems from.

I have always suspected it really had more to do with getting revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc. Of course those posts were down-modded, and I received many, many angry replies stating I was completely off base in claiming he was in any shape or form "gay" or "transgender". Well it turns out that he was diagnosed with whatever you call the whole "Gender Identity" thing where you think you're a girl even though you're not. So I've been vindicated- yes, he was upset over their policies (and understandably so, I find our military attitude highly offensive even today).

What on earth is wrong in your head? You aren't vindicated. Being diagnosed with issues over gender identity doesn't mean he "did it to get revenge over the military's policy towards homosexuals, etc."

Gender identity issues =/= homosexual, nor are they "transgender", but more importantly, you have no smoking gun as to his motivations.

After everything he has been through, I won't make too much of this. He's a very young guy with his own set of issues and he might not have exhibited the best judgment, but he gave us some invaluable presents that we would not have received otherwise.

No, Bradley, I am sorry. As your case slips from the headlines, your treatment in the hands of military prisons is not likely to improve. I indeed fear that 2 or 3 or 4 years from now your suicide may make the front page of the New York Times. Under the fold. I hope you can stay strong. You have my thanks.

No, he's a fucking pussy. To think I participated in a protest calling for his freedom from prosecution.

Man, the things you underwent for the sake of freedom. Were you not afraid to participate in a protest? What's year-long solitary confinement and torture, compared to the willingness to participate in a protest? What a fucking pussy.

One lousy night of extra-judicial service by a half dozen L.A. County Sheriff's Deputies, and I caved. A rather craven, boot-licking moment that I am not too proud of. I didn't get the Rodney King-style beatdown that was scheduled for that morning's lull in business, but I was convinced to plead guilty to a crime that did not occur, so as to avoid the guaranteed five-year sentence in the State Penitentiary.I'd suggest shuffling, shackled, down a mile of cement corridor, in paper slippers, before criticizing this guy.

Today it means "No one is physically sitting at a desk with earphones that convert the mouth noises you make into variations in air pressure, but every phone call you make is being tracked, recorded, stored forever, parsed over by AI, converted into text to speech and should you utter the wrong syllables (for some value of 'wrong') the transcript will be read by everyone in the office and your permanent record will get a '+1 suspicious' tally." But fear not, Citizen! No one is "listening" to your phone calls!

He is clearly just trying to show remorse and get a lighter sentence now. In any measurable way his actions have made the world a better place, no not resulted in any demonstrable harm (except what the US deserves for its actions).

Can't blame him when he could be facing the rest of his life in jail, but I don't believe him for a second.

1. None of his detractors are ever really going to forgive him. They'd just take this as a sign they broke him and pat themselves on the back at a job well done. It vindicates their position, and makes them look better.

2. Its a slap in the face to his supporters. It makes them look like idiots, and traitors for supporting him, which is what its going to be used for in propaganda.

I agree. The quote: 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?' sounds like Manning took the prosecution's argument and rephrased it in the first person. It sounds improbable with respect to sincerity.

How much more natural does it seem to imagine the prosecution (or the authorities in question) saying: 'How on earth could you, a junior analyst, possibly believe that you could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'

My personal experience dealing with psychotics is that this is surprisingly effective. Take the words right out of their mouth, and the delusional motherfuckers take it at face value, like I finally saw the light.It can't hurt.

I wouldn't fault him for that as much as fault the US government for our gross miscarriage of justice.

the impact of this is causing ripples around the globe - more and more companies involving technology do not have any desire to work with the US. This wouldn't matter if we weren't a country that's living basically depends on our technology involvement.

MIT has told the world "fuck you" and was seen as a leader in technology. The NSA has done the same. That's pretty significant.

If Manning had released all that information and all it revealed was that the US was handing out puppies and lollipops, there wouldn't be any harm. Unfortunately, the leaked information showed how underhanded the US government has been acting. Our nation has been revealed to be decidedly untrustworthy and hypocritically opposed to the very ideals it espouses. The harm isn't because Manning shed some light on these underhanded dealings, the harm comes from those dealings themselves!

Now, true, in realpolitik it is impossible for any country to behave with 100% nobility. But as is increasingly becoming obvious - thanks to people like Manning, Assange and Snowden - the United States has gone far beyond the needs of realpolitik and is heading towards cartoonish supervilliany. If the US government wants people - be it foreign nationals or their own citizens - and other nations to trust them, then maybe they should reform their own actions rather than attempt to tar and feather others for offering concrete evidence as to their misdeeds.

I remember growing up and reading about forced confessions in the USSR and being so proud as how this sort of thing doesn't happen in my country. Those days are long gone.

"I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"

That struck me as Bradley saying "I should not be thinking for myself, questioning my superiors and acting according to my morals. I should just follow orders."

Thank goodness the Nuremberg trials have shown that this is the right attitude for a soldier. Never question superiors, never act in a way contrary to their orders no matter how many rights you violate. Bradley Manning has learned...

People forget that America was built by people who refused to question authority, people who knew their place, people who quietly did their part for their superiors and didn't waste time with foolish, liberal ideologies like, well liberty and equality.

It was built by people who would have lost their shirts if the British stayed in control and turned over the vast majority of the central US to the french, as was their plan.They then used fear of Catholics, who where growing in Canada, and lied about taxes by making a big show even tough Taxed tea was cheaper and higher quality then black market tea.And it was liberty and equality for educate white men.

Actually, the American Revolution was very much led from the top. Yes, there were Enlightenment values involved, but that was mostly because those were fashionable in the upper and middle classes at the time.

Let's be clear, the Revolution was more about self-determination and local rule than it was about "liberty" in any absolute sense. They simply wanted the same rights that you would have gotten in England at the time if you happened to live there.

Where I think that America succeeded where European nations (of that time) failed, was the understanding that men of ability did not have to be born of a particular class. You could be a "New Man" and make a name for yourself.

On the other hand, they also very much subscribed to the notion that if you could make it into that class without having to rely on aristocratic birth, you should have a right to rule over your family, and in a larger sense, over the country. In fact, you actually would have the duty to do so. That is why they very carefully moderated the ability for there to be pure popular expressions by having a Senate and an Electoral College.

The US was founded on a later interpretation of Republican Roman values. There was nothing purely egalitarian about those, although there was always the sense that it could lead to something more equitable IF the greater population could be educated and made responsible enough to take it seriously.

it sounds more like "I was naive to think that doing the right thing would change anything for the better".

like, that it was naive to think that anyone would flinch and any war criminals would get what's coming to them... naive to think that exposing any crimes would put a stop to them, naive that those in authority would do jack shit about them.

even then, it's unlikely that he got to say whatever he wanted anyways.

So they "enhanced interrogation" and/or solitary'd him until he broke and said anything they want to make the pain stop, and we're totally supposed to think that his epiphany was due to suddenly remembering just how free we are and people-loving is our government?

Torture has come so far in the last 200 years that when the defendant gets dragged into the court room, there isn't even visible evidence of Iron Maiden puncture marks, the flopping limbs that come from the rack, the rapid flinching from water boarding, or the glossy eyed stare from being subjected to countless hours of network TV.

Ridiculous. There doesn't need to be any torture. He's someone who is in his early 20s looking at the possibility of the rest of his life in a military prison. Like many younger people, he didn't think through the results of his "heroism".

To me his statement sounds incredibly insincere, but insincere or not, he's trying to ensure he actually has some non-grey hair on his head the next time he's a free man. This isn't a capitulation, it's grovelling for less jail time. If one of us was stupid enough to do what he did, we'd probably grovel the same way too. No torture required.

This statement doesn't mean anything other than he's throwing himself on the mercy of the court to see if they want to be soft on him for caving in. And who knows, maybe he actually did have a change of heart. There's a lot of things people do that they regret later, jail or not. I don't think he did, but it is possible.

Any action is going to have positive and negative consequences. The question is: does the good outweigh the bad?

It's probably too early to tell if your actions served the greater good.

On the other hand, what you did was important for your country: the United States is a representative democracy. In order for your government to work as intended, both the representatives and electorat must have information regarding both policies and how those policies are implemented. Without that information, decisions are ill informed (at best) and possibly even manipulated to serve the interests of the government, a particular branch of the government, or a small group of individuals (at worse).

If there was something that the US was doing that bothered him, why didn't he just leak what was relevant to that instead of just dumping everything? There were a lot of embarrassing revelations that came out of his wikileaks dump, and whatever he was trying to accomplish, those stupid but insignificant tid-bits overshadowed it.

Bradley Manning didn't dump everything. His most famous leak, the 250,000 diplomatic cables, were not simply released. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], at first Wikileaks itself released just a couple of cables. Next, it partnered with some news outlets to select specific cables to leak (with redactions to prevent harm to individuals). They released 220 cables at first, and a few thousand more later. Granted, the whole set of 250,000 were fully accessible to specific journalists, but it's not at all the same as a "data dump".

Some months later, a boneheaded journalist published the actual password for decrypting the original cables; later, a backup of the encrypted cables somehow became available as a torrent, so the full set of cables could be decrypted. But this was unintentional and of course, neither of these mistakes was made by Manning himself.

I myself question the wisdom of Manning's release of these cables (I respect him mainly for leaking the Collateral Murder video) but the idea that he "dumped everything" is plainly false.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'

It is not surprising that courts want people to say certain things, to re-establish their sense of moral correctness and order, or that they get the people in front of them to say these things. It is (always) surprising that anyone not on the bench gives these words any weight at all. Coerced testimony is, after all, no true testimony at all.

Someday, Bradley Manning will be as forgotten to them as Monica Lewinsky is. Then they’ll yield to the hornet-like, persistent buzz of the leftie peaceniks, and let Bradley go. He’s not dangerous. Bradley Manning will never do anything of similar consequence again. He’s not a power player. He’s a prisoner of conscience.

"'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?"

Whenever I begin a sentance with how on earth followed immediately by possibly nonsensical belligerance is sure to follow... who knows if this was sincere or not but It does remind me of another "confession"

I believe McCain is a dolt, but at least he was a brave dolt. He was captured and tortured in Viet Nam. While under torture, he signed confessions and accusations against the United States. But yet he was elected as a senator. There are many other examples, as others have pointed out.

No, wrong and illegal are different sets. Hopefully, they have considerable overlap, but all things that are wrong certainly shouldn't be illegal, and there are things that are reasonably illegal that are not wrong. Now, whether or not what Manning did was wrong is a matter of opinion, but whether wrong and illegal are the same thing or not is not up for reasonable debate.

In that case I'd really like to hear your views on slavery, segragation, and voting rights. I'd also like to know how you define things as right and wrong that are illegal in one state or nation but not another.

Have you ever heard of the crime "structuring"? If you haven't let me give you a little summary.

See, a long time ago, for a variety of reasons, some probably legitimate, many probably not, the government made the sale and possession of drugs illegal (including alcohol, at first). In order to maintain illegal businesses, a number of various types of organized crime arose. In response to this, the IRS was given sweeping powers to strike at individuals regarding their assets and income. A set of laws was put in place to give them this power and now, lying to the government about the source and value of your personal income was illegal.

As a result, organized crime businesses needed to find means of distributing cash without records, hence "money laundering". Often using a business, such as a laundromat to direct money elsewhere, criminals could distribute their cash. As a result, a series of new laws were created to prevent the distribution of cash to businesses, including sweeping NEW laws enabling the government to snoop in private company's records.

Moving on, the crime bosses began to launder money internationally. This usually involved briefcases full of cash. As a result, some western countries enacted regulations on the amount of cash one could carry over the border. Today, anything over $10,000 in cash must be declared and will usually be subject to investigation as to the source.

But deciding this wasn't sufficient, in the 1980s, a new law was created, called "structuring". This law essentially prevents you from carrying the sum of $10,000 over the border over the course of multiple trips. This law simply states that you may not circumvent arbitrary controls, such as currency limits, by conducting your activities in such a way as to avoid them.

As the result of a law to prohibit the structuring of activities to avoid the law to prevent the carrying of cash, which itself is to avoid the law of domestic money laundering, which itself is to avoid the law of revenue auditability, which itself is set up to prevent those who started a business based on that which is of questionable ethics (selling prohibited substances).

If prostitution were legalised, I expect demand for those sex slaves would go down to the point it was no longer a commercially viable criminal enterprise. Trafficking covertly and maintaining security around the slave doesn't come cheap.

I think the more disturbing part of the GP is "no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way".

In other words people are incapable of making their own decisions. The Mayor of San Diego gets a pass for harassing women because he didn't get the appropriate training. No one told me it was wrong, so I assumed I could do it. It is the final and complete rejection of any kind of personal responsibility. It is not YOUR fault. You were just doing what you were told/trained to do and therefor the fault lies with whoever told/trained you.

So it's not wrong for your wife to lie to and cheat on you, since it's not illegal?

Bad analogy.

Better analogy: You're cheating on your wife. I tell your wife that you're cheating on her. Am I wrong?Analogy +1: In this case, you're the government and the wife is the American people. As it happens, you've made a law that no one is allowed to disclose if you cheat on your wife.Analogy +2: Our marriage contract says that you don't have the power to make that law.

So: You've broken our marriage contract by making a law stating that no one can tell anyone if you cheated on your wife. Then you cheated on your wife, breaking the covenant of marriage. Then you locked up the guy who tattled that you cheated on your wife.

I'd say that if he was a whistleblower, he'd have taken more care of what he did release, and tried to keep it "on-topic" for some abuses that he could validate were serious and needed to be focused on. He'd also have taken some interest in how they were presented. Presenting the video in question as "Collateral Murder" was frankly incendiary and not conducive to debate, and while he was not responsible for that presentation, Manning selected the outlet and controlled the flow of the data.

However, it's still not treason. He may have broken his oath, but he upheld his responsibility to the American people. And you and all the other people calling him a traitor are doing the work of those who would oppress you, and me too.

It's true that he's just digging at them in that sentence, which is a truly brilliant piece of work. We all know that "proper authority" is code for "all the power". And you are kissing their assholes bigtime.

Actually, it seems he wanted to help America. The same as Snowden. If there was harm done, it was towards the American government. Harming the government is often the best thing you can do for the country.

Thing is, in international conflicts, lives are on the line every day. It's just whose lives are endangered that one side takes issue with.

Lives are also daily at stake in the more or less secret drone wars the US are waging around the world today. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Jemen are some examples. Civilians get killed by US drone pilots fromthe other side of the planet.

I for one am happy the world is starting to get a look into US dealings in foreign affairs. Like hiw Norwegian wx-coos have been recruited by the US embassy in Oslo to spy on Norwegian citizens for the US.

No, the world clearly needs more Mannings' and Snowden's.

A little postscript: This time around it was the US that got busted, I'm hoping for similar leaks in the whole world. We need more transparancy.

I'm sure I can find more, but just off the top of my head with no research, the US did apologize to the Japanese Americans who they put into camps during World War 2. So yes, the US has apologized (although I am not sure if they admitted that they made a mistake.)

He broke his word, he broke whatever trust and faith and responsibilities that his chain of command entrusted in him.

What about the trust and faith he placed in his chain of command, which was broken by covering up illegal and immoral actions condoned by that chain of command? That's far worse than anything Manning did.

Read Adrian Lamo's story. Thats a little fucked up too. That man was broken by the system as well.If there ever was a reason to hate institutionalized psychiatry its Adrian Lamo.(he got arrested once, after he reported a crime against his property, because they cop though he talked like a mental patient, so he was forcibly institutionalized, also social stigmitation made him an outcast wandering the streets for about a decade. Men like him are damn easy to coerce into doing whatever. I suspect some form of